#Retired Marine general warns Putsch policies will lead to failure
The Fair and Balanced Weasel
Thomas E. Ricks, The Washington Post, September 5, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27846-2003Sep4.html
A former U.S. commander for the Middle East who still consults for the
State Department yesterday blasted the Bush administration's handling
of
postwar Iraq, saying it lacked a coherent strategy, a serious plan and
sufficient resources.
"There is no strategy or mechanism for putting the pieces together,"
said retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, and so, he said, "we're in
danger of failing."
In an impassioned speech to several hundred Marine and Navy officers
and
others, Zinni invoked the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in the
1960s and '70s. "My contemporaries, our feelings and sensitivities
were
forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and
the lies, and we saw the sacrifice," said Zinni, who was severely
wounded while serving as an infantry officer in that conflict. "I ask
you, is it happening again?"
Zinni's comments were especially striking because he endorsed
President
Bush in the 2000 campaign, shortly after retiring from active duty,
and
serves as an adviser to the State Department on anti-terror
initiatives
in Indonesia and the Philippines. He preceded Army Gen. Tommy R.
Franks
as chief of the U.S. Central Command, the headquarters for U.S.
military
operations in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.
This was not the first time he has broken with the administration. He
was publicly skeptical last winter of the decision to attack Iraq.
Underscoring how much his views have changed since 2000, he implied
that
the Bush administration is now damaging the U.S. military in the way
that Bush and Vice President Cheney during that campaign charged that
the Clinton administration had done. "We can't go on breaking our
military and doing things like we're doing now," he said.
He also questioned the Bush administration's decision in January to
have
the Pentagon oversee postwar efforts in Iraq. "Why the hell would the
Department of Defense be the organization in our government that deals
with the reconstruction of Iraq?" he asked. "Doesn't make sense."
In addition, he criticized the administration for not working earlier
and harder to win a U.N. resolution that several nations have
indicated
is a prerequisite to their contributing peacekeeping troops to help in
Iraq. "We certainly blew past the U.N.," he said. "Why, I don't know.
Now we're going back hat in hand."
Zinni's comments to the joint meeting in Arlington of the U.S. Naval
Institute and the Marine Corps Association, two professional groups
for
officers, were greeted warmly by his audience, with prolonged applause
at the end. Some officers bought tapes and compact discs of the speech
to give to others.
Impeachments. Court appointments. Gerrymanderings. Recalls. Plane crashes.
Don't Republicans believe in honest elections any more?
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
Foxtrot
>Former Envoy Criticizes Bush's Postwar Iraq Policy
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27846-2003Sep4.html
>
>A former U.S. commander for the Middle East who still consults for the
>State Department yesterday blasted the Bush administration's handling
>of
>postwar Iraq, saying it lacked a coherent strategy, a serious plan and
>sufficient resources.
>He also questioned the Bush administration's decision in January to
>have
>the Pentagon oversee postwar efforts in Iraq. "Why the hell would the
>Department of Defense be the organization in our government that deals
>with the reconstruction of Iraq?" he asked. "Doesn't make sense."
We're still being attacked almost every day. Who else
should do it? Civilians?
>In addition, he criticized the administration for not working earlier
>and harder to win a U.N. resolution that several nations have
Apparently he's not familiar with UN Resolution 1441, which
was unanimously approved by the Security Council.
>indicated
>is a prerequisite to their contributing peacekeeping troops to help in
>Iraq. "We certainly blew past the U.N.," he said. "Why, I don't know.
>Now we're going back hat in hand."
Bush is making the mistake of listening to the candyasses
on his staff like Powell, and is reaching out to the international
community. It's a mistake because it accomplishes nothing,
and gives nations like the America-haters in old Europe an
excuse to attack us.
Arne Langsetmo
>
> The Fair and Balanced Weasel <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >Former Envoy Criticizes Bush's Postwar Iraq Policy
>
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27846-2003Sep4.html
[snip]
> >In addition, he criticized the administration for not working earlier
> >and harder to win a U.N. resolution that several nations have . . .
>
> Apparently he's not familiar with UN Resolution 1441, which
> was unanimously approved by the Security Council.
No, you're just a dumb-ass. I'm sure he was quite familiar with it
(probably more so that you), and also didn't ignore the fact that
the U.S. tried and failed to get U.S. approval for their rush to
war. I'd note also that the U.S. violated the terms of UNSCR 1441,
which require all parties to provide relevant information to the
inspectors. The U.S. was less than forthcoming there, and only
did so under pressure (and when they did, it was "garbage, garbage,
and more garbage").
> > . . . indicated
> >is a prerequisite to their contributing peacekeeping troops to help in
> >Iraq. "We certainly blew past the U.N.," he said. "Why, I don't know.
> >Now we're going back hat in hand."
>
> Bush is making the mistake of listening to the candyasses
> on his staff like Powell, and is reaching out to the international
> community. It's a mistake because it accomplishes nothing,
> and gives nations like the America-haters in old Europe an
> excuse to attack us.
You misspelled "laugh at".
It will accomplish nothing, because Whistle-Ass is too thin-skinned
(and his handlers too egotistical and arrogant) to do what needs to
be done.
On a related note, I'm sure you were quite appreciative of that
"chocolate" comment. Sounds like your kind of "diplomacy". . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Foxtrot
>Foxtrot wrote:
>> Apparently he's not familiar with UN Resolution 1441, which
>> was unanimously approved by the Security Council.
>
>No, you're just a dumb-ass. I'm sure he was quite familiar with it
>(probably more so that you), and also didn't ignore the fact that
>the U.S. tried and failed to get U.S. approval for their rush to
>war. I'd note also that the U.S. violated the terms of UNSCR 1441,
>which require all parties to provide relevant information to the
>inspectors. The U.S. was less than forthcoming there, and only
>did so under pressure (and when they did, it was "garbage, garbage,
>and more garbage").
I see you accuse Bush of violating 1441, but give a pass
to Hussein, who refused to cooperate with UN inspectors
for four years. And yet you liberals don't understand why
the public doesn't trust you with national defense.
>> Bush is making the mistake of listening to the candyasses
>> on his staff like Powell, and is reaching out to the international
>> community. It's a mistake because it accomplishes nothing,
>> and gives nations like the America-haters in old Europe an
>> excuse to attack us.
>On a related note, I'm sure you were quite appreciative of that
>"chocolate" comment. Sounds like your kind of "diplomacy". . . .
Yep, I got a good chuckle out of the State department
spokesman's remarks about the "chocolate makers" in
France, Germany, Belgium and some other forgettable
European nation, and their "little bitty summit". I even
mentioned it in another thread.
It was an appropriate description. When it comes to
global military strength, they have little value beyond the
chocolate snacks they provide for the American forces.
Arne Langsetmo
>
> Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot wrote:
> >> Apparently he's not familiar with UN Resolution 1441, which
> >> was unanimously approved by the Security Council.
> >
> >No, you're just a dumb-ass. I'm sure he was quite familiar with it
> >(probably more so that you), and also didn't ignore the fact that
> >the U.S. tried and failed to get U.S. approval for their rush to
> >war. I'd note also that the U.S. violated the terms of UNSCR 1441,
> >which require all parties to provide relevant information to the
> >inspectors. The U.S. was less than forthcoming there, and only
> >did so under pressure (and when they did, it was "garbage, garbage,
> >and more garbage").
>
> I see you accuse Bush of violating 1441, but give a pass
> to Hussein, who refused to cooperate with UN inspectors
Who says I give Saddam a "pass"? . . .
OK, when you agree that the U.S. should be invaded and its
unelected leader deposed for its sins, I'll agree that Saddam
should also have been taken out.
> . . . And yet you liberals don't understand why
> the public doesn't trust you with national defense.
Been watching the polls lately?
> >> Bush is making the mistake of listening to the candyasses
> >> on his staff like Powell, and is reaching out to the international
> >> community. It's a mistake because it accomplishes nothing,
> >> and gives nations like the America-haters in old Europe an
> >> excuse to attack us.
Nice snip there. How Republican of you.
> >On a related note, I'm sure you were quite appreciative of that
> >"chocolate" comment. Sounds like your kind of "diplomacy". . . .
>
> Yep, I got a good chuckle out of the State department
> spokesman's remarks about the "chocolate makers" in
> France, Germany, Belgium and some other forgettable
> European nation, and their "little bitty summit". I even
> mentioned it in another thread.
Yep, now we have the "pros" in charge. . . . <*sheesh*>
> It was an appropriate description. When it comes to
> global military strength, they have little value beyond the
> chocolate snacks they provide for the American forces.
Which, of course, is why the U.S. is going begging to them
for help so that American kids won't be the only "goat tied
to a stake" to "draw the terrorists out". . . . In case
you haven't noticed, the military is not exactly pleased
with this idea either (not to mention extended tours, pay
cuts, veteran's hospital closings, and all the other fine
ways the Republican are showing their appreciation).
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
The Fair and Balanced Weasel
>Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot wrote:
>>> Apparently he's not familiar with UN Resolution 1441, which
>>> was unanimously approved by the Security Council.
>>
>>No, you're just a dumb-ass. I'm sure he was quite familiar with it
>>(probably more so that you), and also didn't ignore the fact that
>>the U.S. tried and failed to get U.S. approval for their rush to
>>war. I'd note also that the U.S. violated the terms of UNSCR 1441,
>>which require all parties to provide relevant information to the
>>inspectors. The U.S. was less than forthcoming there, and only
>>did so under pressure (and when they did, it was "garbage, garbage,
>>and more garbage").
>
>I see you accuse Bush of violating 1441, but give a pass
>to Hussein, who refused to cooperate with UN inspectors
>for four years. And yet you liberals don't understand why
>the public doesn't trust you with national defense.
Hussein didn't invade America and massacre a bunch of the civilians
over it. Putsch did.
>
>>> Bush is making the mistake of listening to the candyasses
>>> on his staff like Powell, and is reaching out to the international
>>> community. It's a mistake because it accomplishes nothing,
>>> and gives nations like the America-haters in old Europe an
>>> excuse to attack us.
>
>>On a related note, I'm sure you were quite appreciative of that
>>"chocolate" comment. Sounds like your kind of "diplomacy". . . .
>
>Yep, I got a good chuckle out of the State department
>spokesman's remarks about the "chocolate makers" in
>France, Germany, Belgium and some other forgettable
>European nation, and their "little bitty summit". I even
>mentioned it in another thread.
>
>It was an appropriate description. When it comes to
>global military strength, they have little value beyond the
>chocolate snacks they provide for the American forces.
The Fair and Balanced Weasel
>The Fair and Balanced Weasel <zeppn...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>Former Envoy Criticizes Bush's Postwar Iraq Policy
>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27846-2003Sep4.html
>>
>>A former U.S. commander for the Middle East who still consults for the
>>State Department yesterday blasted the Bush administration's handling
>>of
>>postwar Iraq, saying it lacked a coherent strategy, a serious plan and
>>sufficient resources.
>
>>He also questioned the Bush administration's decision in January to
>>have
>>the Pentagon oversee postwar efforts in Iraq. "Why the hell would the
>>Department of Defense be the organization in our government that deals
>>with the reconstruction of Iraq?" he asked. "Doesn't make sense."
>
>We're still being attacked almost every day. Who else
>should do it? Civilians?
How about Iraqis? With us the hell out of there, except to pay for
the damage we did?
>
>>In addition, he criticized the administration for not working earlier
>>and harder to win a U.N. resolution that several nations have
>
>Apparently he's not familiar with UN Resolution 1441, which
>was unanimously approved by the Security Council.
I'm sure he is. Show us where the resolution says the US can attack
Iraq without permission from the UN and depose the government.
>
>>indicated
>>is a prerequisite to their contributing peacekeeping troops to help in
>>Iraq. "We certainly blew past the U.N.," he said. "Why, I don't know.
>>Now we're going back hat in hand."
>
>Bush is making the mistake of listening to the candyasses
>on his staff like Powell, and is reaching out to the international
>community. It's a mistake because it accomplishes nothing,
>and gives nations like the America-haters in old Europe an
>excuse to attack us.
That wouldn't be so repulsive if it was your kids in Iraq that will
die for your phony bravado.
Martin McPhillips
news:qksllvo8sckel2tus...@4ax.com...
> Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Foxtrot wrote:
> >> Apparently he's not familiar with UN Resolution 1441, which
> >> was unanimously approved by the Security Council.
> >
> >No, you're just a dumb-ass. I'm sure he was quite familiar with it
> >(probably more so that you), and also didn't ignore the fact that
> >the U.S. tried and failed to get U.S. approval for their rush to
> >war. I'd note also that the U.S. violated the terms of UNSCR 1441,
> >which require all parties to provide relevant information to the
> >inspectors. The U.S. was less than forthcoming there, and only
> >did so under pressure (and when they did, it was "garbage, garbage,
> >and more garbage").
>
> I see you accuse Bush of violating 1441, but give a pass
> to Hussein, who refused to cooperate with UN inspectors
> for four years.
Arne's an unfortunate case. Best to leave him alone.
Arne Langsetmo
Unfortunate for you, perhaps. Your ass feeling too tender to
hack it?
"Run away!, Sir Robin, run away!!!". . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Glenn
--
Glenn: In the heart of the Ozarks
"Arne Langsetmo" <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3F5AFE4C...@ix.netcom.com...
> Foxtrot wrote:
> >
> > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Foxtrot wrote:
> > >> Apparently he's not familiar with UN Resolution 1441, which
> > >> was unanimously approved by the Security Council.
> > >
> > >No, you're just a dumb-ass. I'm sure he was quite familiar with it
> > >(probably more so that you), and also didn't ignore the fact that
> > >the U.S. tried and failed to get U.S. approval for their rush to
> > >war. I'd note also that the U.S. violated the terms of UNSCR 1441,
> > >which require all parties to provide relevant information to the
> > >inspectors. The U.S. was less than forthcoming there, and only
> > >did so under pressure (and when they did, it was "garbage, garbage,
> > >and more garbage").
> >
> > I see you accuse Bush of violating 1441, but give a pass
> > to Hussein, who refused to cooperate with UN inspectors
> > for four years. . . .
>
> Who says I give Saddam a "pass"? . . .
>
> OK, when you agree that the U.S. should be invaded and its
> unelected leader deposed for its sins, I'll agree that Saddam
> should also have been taken out.
I agree the US needs to be invaded when we torture and execute thousands,
burying them in mass graves; when we use poison gas against thousands of our
own citizens; when we are ruled by a bloodthisty meglomaniac dictator and
his equally cruel sons.
>
> > . . . And yet you liberals don't understand why
> > the public doesn't trust you with national defense.
>
> Been watching the polls lately?
Only one "poll" counts.
>
> > >> Bush is making the mistake of listening to the candyasses
> > >> on his staff like Powell, and is reaching out to the international
> > >> community. It's a mistake because it accomplishes nothing,
> > >> and gives nations like the America-haters in old Europe an
> > >> excuse to attack us.
>
> Nice snip there. How Republican of you.
Too bad you can't refute it. How Democratic of you.
>
> > >On a related note, I'm sure you were quite appreciative of that
> > >"chocolate" comment. Sounds like your kind of "diplomacy". . . .
> >
> > Yep, I got a good chuckle out of the State department
> > spokesman's remarks about the "chocolate makers" in
> > France, Germany, Belgium and some other forgettable
> > European nation, and their "little bitty summit". I even
> > mentioned it in another thread.
>
> Yep, now we have the "pros" in charge. . . . <*sheesh*>
Like the Democrats are "pro's"? Algore?
>
> > It was an appropriate description. When it comes to
> > global military strength, they have little value beyond the
> > chocolate snacks they provide for the American forces.
>
> Which, of course, is why the U.S. is going begging to them
> for help so that American kids won't be the only "goat tied
> to a stake" to "draw the terrorists out". . . . In case
> you haven't noticed, the military is not exactly pleased
> with this idea either (not to mention extended tours, pay
> cuts, veteran's hospital closings, and all the other fine
> ways the Republican are showing their appreciation).
Be thankful the Democrats aren't in charge.
Jeffrey Turner
I suppose that explains some of it.
The US executed thousands of Iraqis, some of them torturously,
some buried in nothing but rubble. Who does rule Amerika, BTW?
--Jeff
--
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have
ever been forged out of the weapons provided
for defence against real, pretended, or
imaginary dangers from abroad."
James Madison
"an enormous Proportion of Property vested in
a few Individuals is dangerous to the Rights,
and destructive of the Common Happiness, of
Mankind; and therefore every free State hath
a Right by its Laws to discourage the Possession
of such Property."
Ben Franklin
"To delight in war is a merit in the soldier,
a dangerous quality in the captain, and a
positive crime in the statesman."
George Santayana
"Bring them on."
George W. Bush
Arne Langsetmo
> "Arne Langsetmo" <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3F5AFE4C...@ix.netcom.com...
> > Foxtrot wrote:
> > >
> > > Arne Langsetmo <zu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Foxtrot wrote:
> > > >> Apparently he's not familiar with UN Resolution 1441, which
> > > >> was unanimously approved by the Security Council.
> > > >
> > > >No, you're just a dumb-ass. I'm sure he was quite familiar with it
> > > >(probably more so that you), and also didn't ignore the fact that
> > > >the U.S. tried and failed to get U.S. approval for their rush to
> > > >war. I'd note also that the U.S. violated the terms of UNSCR 1441,
> > > >which require all parties to provide relevant information to the
> > > >inspectors. The U.S. was less than forthcoming there, and only
> > > >did so under pressure (and when they did, it was "garbage, garbage,
> > > >and more garbage").
> > >
> > > I see you accuse Bush of violating 1441, but give a pass
> > > to Hussein, who refused to cooperate with UN inspectors
> > > for four years. . . .
> >
> > Who says I give Saddam a "pass"? . . .
> >
> > OK, when you agree that the U.S. should be invaded and its
> > unelected leader deposed for its sins, I'll agree that Saddam
> > should also have been taken out.
>
> I agree the US needs to be invaded when we torture and execute
I think that the KKK and other such groups lynched well over a thousand
from the 1890's to the 1930's.
> burying them in mass graves; when we use poison gas against thousands
> of our own citizens; . . .
How about poison blankets?
> . . . when we are ruled by a bloodthisty meglomaniac dictator and
> his equally cruel sons.
Your time has come!
> >
> > > . . . And yet you liberals don't understand why
> > > the public doesn't trust you with national defense.
> >
> > Been watching the polls lately?
>
> Only one "poll" counts.
The type that Republicans seem to want to make a thing of
the past?
> > > >> Bush is making the mistake of listening to the candyasses
> > > >> on his staff like Powell, and is reaching out to the international
> > > >> community. It's a mistake because it accomplishes nothing,
> > > >> and gives nations like the America-haters in old Europe an
> > > >> excuse to attack us.
> >
> > Nice snip there. How Republican of you.
>
> Too bad you can't refute it. How Democratic of you.
No. I replied. Fauxy ignored it and snipped it. Go back and look.
> > > >On a related note, I'm sure you were quite appreciative of that
> > > >"chocolate" comment. Sounds like your kind of "diplomacy". . . .
> > >
> > > Yep, I got a good chuckle out of the State department
> > > spokesman's remarks about the "chocolate makers" in
> > > France, Germany, Belgium and some other forgettable
> > > European nation, and their "little bitty summit". I even
> > > mentioned it in another thread.
> >
> > Yep, now we have the "pros" in charge. . . . <*sheesh*>
>
> Like the Democrats are "pro's"? Algore?
Pretty much _anyone_ would be better than the Keystone Kops
we have right now. . . .
> > > It was an appropriate description. When it comes to
> > > global military strength, they have little value beyond the
> > > chocolate snacks they provide for the American forces.
> >
> > Which, of course, is why the U.S. is going begging to them
> > for help so that American kids won't be the only "goat tied
> > to a stake" to "draw the terrorists out". . . . In case
> > you haven't noticed, the military is not exactly pleased
> > with this idea either (not to mention extended tours, pay
> > cuts, veteran's hospital closings, and all the other fine
> > ways the Republican are showing their appreciation).
>
> Be thankful the Democrats aren't in charge.
Why? The Democrats are (pretty much) opposing those things.
I think some are also questioning the wisdom of putting
in more troops of any flag without a fundamental change in
approach to try to alleviate some of the reasons for the
current violence.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo